Submit your Article

3 In the executive

 APEX Series

WOMEN IN POLITICS

1 In political parties

2 In the legislature

3 In the executive

4 In key appointments

5 Overall picture

The male bias in cabinets

 Despite the consti­tutional provision of 33 percent women’s representation intro­duced after 2007, there has not been much improvement in female representation in the cabinet. An examination of all the cabinets formed after 2007 shows that women’s representation remains frustratingly low. After the promul­gation of the interim constitution in 2007, 10 cabinets have been formed but none has 33 percent representa­tion of women.

Even after the promulgation of the constitution in 2015, the num­ber of women in the cabinet has not increased significantly. Women’s representation in key decision-mak­ing bodies remains disappointing. Women have generally been rel­egated to the posts of deputies in local bodies and state ministers in provincial governments.

 In the federal cabinet led by the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) Chairman KP Sharma Oli, there are 22 ministers and three state ministers. Only three of the 22 ministers are women—Tham Maya Thapa (Minister for Women, Chil­dren and Senior Citizen), Bina Magar (Minister for Water) and Padma Kumari Aryal (Minister for Land Management, Cooperatives and Pov­erty). Of the three state ministers, one is woman—Ram Kumari Chaud­hary (State Minister for Agriculture and Livestock). This is a clear violation of the con­stitutional provision that requires 33 percent women’s representation in all state organs. Among the 22 ministers, Thapa, Magar and Aryal hold 14th, 21st and 22nd positions respectively in the cabinet. In prin­ciple, the council of ministers consti­tutes ministers, state ministers and deputy ministers, but the state and deputy ministers are barred from participating in cabinet meetings.

A few days ago, Minister Thapa publicly demanded 33 percent women’s representation in the cabi­net. Ruling party leaders didn’t pay any heed.

Constitutional and legal provi­sions stipulate that all three levels of government should appoint 33 percent women, but political parties tend to ignore these provisions in areas where the Election Commis­sion (EC) cannot impose its decision. For example, the EC cannot dictate how the cabinet is formed.

In provincial governments too, women’s representation is disap­pointing. Of the seven provincial governments, Provinces 1 and 3 have no women, which shows sheer negligence on the part of the political parties. In Province 2, there are two women who are state ministers, namely Dimpal Jha and Usha Yadav.

In Province 4, Nara Devi Pun is Minister for Social Development; in Province 5, Aarati Poudel is Minis­ter for Land Management, Agricul­ture and Cooperative; in Province 6, Bimala KC is Minister for Land Management, Agriculture and Coop­erative; and in Province 7, Binita Chaudhary is Minister for Land Reform, Agriculture and Coopera­tive and Maya Bhatta is Minister for Industry, Tourism, and Forest and Environment. That is it.

In local government

The local election held in 2017 after a two-decade hiatus proved his­toric in terms of ensuring 33 percent women representation. Currently, there are 753 local level units—six metropolis, 11 sub-metropolis, 276 municipalities and 460 rural munic­ipalities. The local polls elected a total of 35,041 representatives, of whom around 14,000 were women. This means, for the first time in Nepal’s political history, there is 40 percent women’s representation in local governments.

The number of women at the local level increased significantly due to the legal provision imposed by the EC, which provided that 40 percent of all nominee seats be reserved for women candidates. This included the requirement that between the mayor and the deputy mayor, and between the chair and the deputy chair of rural municipalities, polit­ical parties has to field at least one woman candidate.

The parties mostly picked a male candidate for the mayor’s post and a female candidate for the deputy mayor’s. That is why an overwhelm­ing number of deputies in the local bodies are female and chiefs are male. At the ward level, the Local Level Electoral Act 2017 has reserved two seats in each of the nearly 7,000 ward committees for women, one of which has to be for a Dalit woman.

History of women in cabinet

Political awareness in the coun­try grew after the overthrow of the Rana regime and the establishment of multi-party democracy in 1951. A cursory analysis of the national cab­inets formed after 1951 shows that women’s representation is depress­ingly low; there were no women in several of these cabinets.

The 10-member cabinet formed after the establishment of democ­racy in 1951 and led by Mohan Shum­sher Rana had no woman. In fact, no Cabinet between 1951 and 1959 had any women. The 20-member cabinet formed on May 27, 1959 and led by the late Nepali Congress leader Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala had one woman member, Dwarika Devi Thakurani, making her the country’s first female minister. That cabinet was soon dissolved by King Mahendra, who then imposed a par­tyless Panchayat regime that lasted three decades.

The first cabinet led by King Mahendra himself had no woman. In fact, it wasn’t until 1972 that Nepal got another female minis­ter. The cabinet led by Kirti Nidhi Bista in 1972 had one women min­ister—Kamal Shah—who served as the state minister for health. All cabinets formed between 1972 and 1990, including the interim gov­ernment led by the late NC leader Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, had only one woman minister—save for the 1988 cabinet that had two women.

1990 to 2007

The first elected government led by the late NC leader Girija Prasad Koirala after the promulgation of a new constitution in 1990 had one woman minister, a number that remained unchanged when the cab­inet was later reshuffled. The cabi­nets formed between 1991 and 1995 saw no representation of women. The cabinet formed under the NC leader Sher Bahadur Deuba in September 1995 had no woman, but when it was reshuffled later in the same year, one female minister was appointed.

In all cabinets formed after 1995, the representation of women was negligible; there was either none or one female cabinet member, with one exception in 1996, which saw three female ministers. All the cabinets from 2001 to 2006 had very low representation of women. In this period, the number of female ministers ranged from one to three.

The first cabinet formed after Janaandolan-2 led by the then NC President Girija Prasad Koirala in April 2006 had no female repre­sentation. When the cabinet was reshuffled the following month, two women ministers were inducted.

No improvement after 2007

Despite the constitutional pro­vision of 33 percent women’s rep­resentation introduced after 2007, there has not been much improve­ment in female representation in the cabinet. An examination of all the cabinets formed after 2007 shows that women’s representation remains frustratingly low. After the promulgation of the interim con­stitution in 2007, 10 cabinets have been formed but none has 33 per­cent representation of women.

The first cabinet led by the then NC President Girija Prasad Koirala after 2007 had only two women ministers.

After the first Constituent Assembly (CA) election in April 2008, the then Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal formed an eight-member cabinet, which was expanded to 20 members after a few weeks. The number of women ministers in that cabinet was four, a significant improvement from previ­ous cabinets.

On May 25, 2009, the then CPN-UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal replaced Dahal and formed a two-member cabinet, which was later expanded to nine members, including two women ministers. The cabinet was again expanded to 18, but there was no increase in the representation of women. On February 7, 2011, the then UML leader Jhala Nath Khanal replaced Madhav Kumar Nepal and initially formed a three-member cabinet with no female representation. That cabinet was later reshuffled and expanded to 27 ministers, including eight women. Khanal was succeeded by the then Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai, whose 36-member Cabi­net included 10 women ministers—a huge improvement.

That cabinet was expanded to 38 members and the number of women ministers reached 11. After the dissolution of the CA, the then Chief Justice Khila Raj Reg­mi-led government, formed in 2013, had 10 ministers, only one of whom was female.

After the second CA election in November 2013, the then NC Pres­ident Sushil Koirala became prime minister, whose 19-member cabinet had only three women ministers.

Even after the promulgation of the constitution in 2015, which ensured 33 percent women’s representa­tion in all state organs, the number of women in the cabinet has not increased significantly. The gov­ernment formed under the then CPN-UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli in October 2015 had only two women ministers. When the then Maoist Chairman Dahal replaced Oli, the number of female cabinet members dropped to one. The NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba, who succeeded Dahal in 2017, reshuffled his cabinet six times. In his 56-mem­ber ‘jumbo’ cabinet, there were very few women.

Despite some improvement, women’s representation in key decision-making bodies remains low. Women have generally been relegated to the posts of deputies in local bodies and state ministers in provincial governments. This shows that political parties are not serious about meaningful female partic­ipation. They should go beyond tokenism and appoint women to key positions in their party as well as in the government.

2 In the legislature

 APEX Series

WOMEN IN POLITICS

1 In political parties

2 In the legislature

3 In the executive

4 In key appointments

5 Overall picture

With 33 percent women rep­resentatives in both the federal parliament and provincial assemblies, Nepal out­ranks other Asian countries when it comes to female representation in parliament. A close study of par­liaments formed after Nepal’s first parliamentary elections in 1959 clearly shows that women’s rep­resentation is increasing, thanks to some strict constitutional and legal provisions. There has been improvement on this front despite the political leadership’s reluctance to provide due space to female lawmakers. This week, we explore the represen­tation of women in our legislative branch, in what is the second part of the five-part APEX “Women in politics” series.

In 1959, Nepal elected its first bicameral parliament through a general election. Of the 109 mem­bers elected, only one was female. Dwarika Devi Thakurani was in fact Nepal’s first Member of Parliament. She later became a member of the BP Koirala-led cabinet in 1959, in what was Nepal’s first democrati­cally elected government.

After King Mahendra dissolved Nepal’s first parliament as well as the Koirala government and imposed a party-less regime in 1960, there was no democratically elected parliament during the three-decade-long Panchayat era. Instead there was the Ras­triya Panchayat, a mixed bag of people appointed directly by the King and zonal representatives favored by the regime. The first Ras­triya Panchayat formed in 1963 had three women. During the entire Panchayat regime, women’s repre­sentation was nominal.

After the restoration of democracy in 1990, women’s representation increased slightly, but was still very low. In the first parliament elected in 1991, there were six women MPs. The number reached seven in 1994 and 12 in 1999.

 "Naturally, it would be easier for female lawmakers to highlight women’s issues, but they are yet to play the role expected of them. They are learning though" Sashi Kala Dahal, Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly

The bare minimum

The historic changes of 2006 and the subsequent interim constitution of 2007 fixed the minimum number of women in the national parlia­ment, compelling political parties to abide by it. In many cases, the parties tried to flout the constitu­tional requirement. But now the provision of 33 percent women’s representation in the parliament is firmly established.

Still, the parties have only fulfilled the minimum constitutional require­ment and have not taken proactive measures to increase the number of women MPs.

In the first Constituent Assembly (CA) in 2008, the number of women elected under the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system was 30, which represented just 12.5 percent of the total parliamentarians elected under the system. As many as 26 of these women lawmakers were affiliated to the then Maoist party. The constitutionally-mandated 33 percent women’s representation was fulfilled in the first CA through proportionate representation.

The percentage of women par­liamentarians who won under the FPTP system came down to 4.17 in the second CA elections in 2013, which elected only 10 female candi­dates. Women’s total representation also fell to 30 percent, which was an open violation of the interim constitution. Despite pressure from the Election Commission, parties were reluctant to ensure 33 percent representation of women.

The number of women who win under the FPTP system is still very low. It is primarily because the party leadership thinks women candidates cannot win direct elections. But there is another side to the story; top women leaders of major parties prefer to be MPs under the Propor­tional Representation (PR) category, with almost guaranteed election, whereas contesting an election is always a risky bet. (Perhaps they are well aware of their slim chance of winning in what is still largely a patriarchal society.)

Not in leadership

In the current House of Represen­tative (HoR), of the 165 lawmakers elected under the FPTP category, only six are women. The politi­cal parties met the constitutional requirement by selecting more women in the PR category.

Of the 275 HoR members, 90 are women (32.7 percent). And of the 59 National Assembly (NA) members, 22 are women (37.3 percent). How­ever, women are not in leadership positions. Both the speakers are male whereas the deputy speak­ers are female. (Shashikala Dahal is the deputy speaker of the NA and Shiva Maya Tumbahambe is the deputy speaker of the HoR.) In the provincial assemblies, all deputy speakers are women. This clearly shows women’s secondary role and position—from the center, down to the grassroots.

However, in a recent noteworthy achievement, in the second Constit­uent Assembly (CA), Onsari Gharti was elected the first female Speaker in Nepal’s parliamentary history. Gharti was a leader of the then CPN (Maoist Center). The second CA was transformed into a parliament after the constitution’s promulgation in September 2015.

There is also the provision of 33 percent women’s representation in the parliamentary committees, which are considered mini-par­liaments. Of the 12 parliamentary committees under the HoR, women lawmakers lead four. Of the four committees under the NA, women lawmakers lead two.

Article 84(8) of the constitution clearly states: “Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Part, at least one third of the total number of members elected from each political party repre­senting in the Federal Parliament must be women. If women are not so elected as to constitute one third of the elected members of any political party… such political party must, in electing members… so elect that women members constitute at least one third of the total number of members elected to the Federal Parliament from the party.”

Provisional figures

Women’s representation in the provincial assemblies is satisfac­tory, but not particularly encour­aging in that the parties have just met the constitutional provision of 33 percent women’s represen­tation but not gone beyond that. In the 93-member Provincial Assembly (PA) in Province 1, there are 31 women.

In the 107-member PA in Province 2, there are 35 women. In Prov­ince 3, there are 36 women in the 110-member PA. The 60-member PA in Province 4 has 20 women. The number of women in the 87-member PA in Province 5 is 29. There are 13 women in the 40-member PA in Province 6 and 17 women in the 53-member PA in Province 7.

A report of the global Inter-Par­liamentary Union (IPU) says: “With 33.5 percent women parliamen­tarians in the two houses of the Federal Parliament, Nepal is well above the global average of 23.8 percent women parliamentarians.” The average for Asian countries is 19.8 percent. The report says Nepal is ranked 37th out of 193 countries, followed, among South Asian coun­tries, by Afghanistan (55), Pakistan (93), Bangladesh (95), India (147), Bhutan (170), Maldives (178) and Sri Lanka (180).

Globally the number of women in parliaments seems to have stagnated at around 23 percent and women’s progress in politics has been painfully slow. Accord­ing to the Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, it will take 50 years to achieve 50-50 parity at this rate.

Nepali women lawmakers say their representation in the parlia­ment has contributed to highlight the myriad issues women face. “Nat­urally, it would be easier for female lawmakers to highlight women’s issues, but they are yet to play an effective role expected of them. They are learning though,” says Sashi Kala Dahal, Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly. She says women are heading some parlia­mentary committees effectively. “The role of women lawmakers will be more effective as they gain expe­rience in parliamentary practice,” she says.

But Dahal wasn’t happy that deputy speakers of pro­vincial assemblies are ranked below an undersecretary in the new precedence order in Provincial Assembly, and thinks that it needs to be corrected.

With women’s increasing num­bers, and hopefully more mean­ingful participation, in the national and provincial legislatures, we can expect them to formulate laws that address the problems faced by women, who constitute 51 percent of Nepal’s population. Other laws will also be more balanced.

1 In political parties

APEX SERIES

WOMEN IN POLITICS

1 In political parties

2 In the legislature

3 In the executive

4 In key appointments

5 Overall picture

Nepal has four national parties that got over three percent of the total votes cast in the last general elections. And all four are illegitimate. The Nepal Communist  Party, the Nepali Congress, the Fed- eral Socialist Forum Nepal and the  Rastriya Janata Party Nepal have something terrible in common. The representation of women in them is well below the 33 percent threshold as required by electoral laws. It is also against the spirit of the new constitution.

NCP co-chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal recently admitted that his  party was illegal for the same rea- son. No other top leader from the  Big Four has been so forthcoming.  But they are all the same: illegiti- mate. In the 441-member NCP cen- tral committee, there are only 75  women (17 percent).

Meanwhile, in the 84-member central working  committee (CWC) of the Nepali Con- gress, there are 17 women (20.24  percent). Madhes-based parties, which have strongly raised the issue of inclusion, have also failed to ensure enough female participation in their party  structures. In the RJPN’s 815-mem- ber central committee, only 129  women (15.8 percent) have been  appointed and the 268-member cen- tral committee of the FSFN, a coali- tion partner of the Oli government,  has only 28 women (10.44 percent).

It is not just within the formal  structures of political parties  that women are under-represent- ed. There are not enough wom- en MPs, ministers and appoint- ed representatives in important  constitutional bodies.

Our five-part weekly APEX Series, ‘Women in Politics’, deals with this important but often neglected issue. (The first part in this issue focuses on women’s representation within political parties.) Nepal can never be an inclusive society unless  women, who make up over 50 per- cent of the national population, are  proportionally represented in all state organs.    

How the major parties have become male bastions

On May 17, 2018, lead­ers of the CPN-UML and the CPN (Maoist Center) jointly submitted an applica­tion to the Election Commission (EC) to register the Nepal Com­munist Party (NCP), formed after the merger of the two parties. The commission asked the new party to ensure that one-third of its central committee members are women. Initial­ly, the EC took a firm stand that constitu­tional and legal provi­sions do not otherwise allow it to register a new party. Some commission officials suggested giving the NCP a month to meet that requirement. The party, however, was not serious about implementing constitutional and legal pro­visions. Instead, top party leaders started exerting pressure on the EC to com­plete the registration pro­cess at the earliest.

Nepali Congress: The first central working committee (CWC) of the Nepali Congress elected in 1947 did not have a single woman. Neither did another CWC elected in 1950. In fact, all CWCs elect­ed before 1960 lacked women representatives. The 31-member CWC elected in 1960 saw the rep­resentation of one woman. There is no official record of CWC forma­tion and women’s representation during the Panchayat regime, as party activities were banned.

After the restoration of democ­racy in 1990, there was some progress in women’s representa­tion in the party. The 18-member CWC elected by the eighth gener­al convention in 1992 had three women representatives. The number remained unchanged for a few years. The convention held in 2001 elected only one woman in the 18-member CWC. In 2008, the number of wom­en representatives in the CWC reached seven and in 2010 it increased to 17. Now, there are 17 women representatives in the 85-member CWC.

Communist parties: Before 1990, the Nepal Communist Party was the country’s mainstream communist party, although it suf­fered several splits. Records show that there were no women in the central committee (CC) of the NCP from the 1950s to the 1990s. After the restoration of democ­racy, the CPN-ML was the main­stream community force, which was later renamed the CPN-UML. In the first 17-member central committee of the CPN-ML in 1989, there was no woman.

The fifth general convention of the CPN-UML held in 1992 elected only one female representative in its 34-member CC. The sixth gen­eral convention in 1998 did not elect any woman as a CC member. Likewise, the seventh General Convention in 2003 elected four women in its 39-member CC, and the eighth general convention in 2014 elected 22 women in its 93-member CWC, which, though inadequate, is a huge progress.

Former Maoists: Data show that the Maoist party, which launched the 10-year-long insur­gency, has not been serious about women’s representation in the party either. The central com­mittee formed in 1994 did not have any women. In 2000, only four women were elected in the 51-member CC. In 2004, the num­ber plummeted to nine. In 2006, only two women were elected in the 34-member CC. In 2006, in the 34-member CC, the number of women was only two, which remained unchanged till 2008.

In December 2008, the Mao­ists elected only 13 women in the 125-member CC. Then, in 2013, the party formed a 128-member CC but with only 23 women rep­resentatives. After that, the size of the Maoist CC varied substantially from time to time due to multi­ple splits, and there is no official record of the number of women representatives.

(Historical data in the article from the pre-1990 period have been borrowed from journalist Dhurba Simkhada’s book ‘Mulukako Muhar’ published by Himal Kitab)

With a month left before the expiry of two transitional justice mechanisms—the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission on Inves­tigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP)—the government has stepped up consultations with opposition Nepali Congress and other stakeholders. The extended tenure of the two commissions expires on Feb 10.

Minister for Law and Parlia­mentary Affairs Bhanu Bhakta Dhakal, Minister for Energy Barsha Man Pun and NC leader Ramesh Lekhak are in close consultations to finalize the amended draft of the TRC law. “We are holding consul­tations but the government is yet to clarify its position,” Lekhak told APEX. “Once the government comes up with a clear position on how to amend the law, we will make our position clear as well.”

Senior NCP leader and party spokesperson Narayan Kaji Shrestha said discussions are aimed at amend­ing the TRC laws in line with the Supreme Court order. “Consensus has not been achieved yet,” Shrestha said. He added that the current offi­cer bearers of the two commissions are unlikely to be continued.

Shrestha, however, played down the prospect of creation of new mechanisms to replace the two existing commissions. “We will not replace those commissions by new mechanisms. The commissions will be extended but there could be new appointments,” Shrestha said.

There is national and interna­tional pressure to amend TRC Act in line with the Supreme Court order. In 2015, the apex court had struck down amnesty provisions in the Act and sought clarity in provisions related to serious human rights vio­lations. The SC had also criminalized torture and disappearance.

There are two views within the ruling NCP on how to deal with war-era cases. The leaders of former CPN-UML want to prosecute those involved in serious human rights violations such as killing, disappear­ance and rape. The former Maoist leaders prefer blanket amnesty on all war-era cases. Otherwise, they, including Pushpa Kamal Dahal, fear being implicated in war crimes in international courts. The NC, mean­while, is likely to take a position in line with the SC verdict, which will make it difficult to find a solution.

Of late, conflict victims have also sought their involvement in transitional justice. The TRC and CIEDP were originally formed for two years. Their terms have twice been extended by a year. The two commissions have received about 66,000 complaints among them but not a single case has been fully investigated.

Commission members say indirect political interference from political parties crippled their investigation.

Divergent interests of ruling party, conflict victims and international community mean parties will, as an immediate solution, again insert vague positions into the TRC law. If this happens, the TRC will again become a platform to provide jobs to those close to the government and to give continuity to the status quo.

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s ‘instruction’ to federal lower house Speaker Krishna Bahadur Mahara to administer the oath of office and secrecy to parliament-elect Resham Chaud­hary, the prime suspect of the Kailali killings, has raised many moral, political and legal ques­tions. The decision on the swear­ing-in of Chaudhary was jointly taken by PM Oli and co-chairman of his party, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, without consulting other party members and seemingly without any inputs from legal and consti­tutional experts. It clearly signals that Oli wants continued support of Madhes-based parties and will make any compromise to that end. But the decision has invited criti­cism within his own party. Nepal Communist Party leader Bhim Rawal, for instance, has labelled the decision “inappropriate”. On August 23, 2015, a group of protestors had lynched seven policemen and an infant in Tikapur, Kailali, raising fears that the constitution drafting process would again be halted. The police filed a case against Chaudhary, accusing him of being the key archi­tect of the killings (See box). Chaud­hary’s party Rastriya Janata Party Nepal (RJPN) has always denied his involvement.

Political or criminal case?

Krishna Pahadi, a human rights activist and civil society leader, thinks that Chaudhary’s swearing-in signals the growing trend of politicization and institu­tionalization of crime. “What hap­pened in Kailali was not a political movement. It was a grievous crime and the perpetrators should be punished,” said Pahadi, adding that delay in court settlement of the case has invited complications.

Bhimarjun Acharya, a consti­tutional expert, thinks Chaud­hary’s swearing-in is against the constitution and parliamentary rules. “The swearing-in of some­one with a pending criminal case is unconstitutional. The demands of the Tharu population are of a political nature, but the slaugh­ter of seven police officials and an infant is a crime. In fact, Chaud­hary was ineligible for elections under existing laws,” says Acharya. Madhes-based parties, however, are of the view that Chaudhary’s case is a political one and should be withdrawn or resolved through political consensus.

When Oli became prime minister in February last year, he sought the support of the Madhes-based parties and pledged to fulfill their demands. Ever since, the RJPN has continuously asked for the with­drawal of the case against Chaud­hary. Recently, after Oli seemed non-committal, the RJPN issued a seven-day ultimatum on Dec 25, stating that it would withdraw support to the government if its demand was not fulfilled. Although the prime minister has sufficient numbers in Parliament, he wants continued support of the Mad­hes-based parties, if only to demon­strate that he has their back.

Chaudhary’s swearing-in indi­cates a shift in Oli’s position on the Kailali killings. Soon after the incident, Oli had been against talks with the protestors, saying it was a criminal activity and there was no room for talks. In 2016, as the then Home Minister Bimalendra Nidhi prepared to withdraw the case against Chaudhary, the then CPN-UML had protested.

NCP co-chairman Dahal has also been pressing Oli to fulfill the demands of the RJPN. The then CPN (Maoist Centre) led by Dahal had taken the Tikapur killings as a political incident, whereas the then UML led by Oli had termed it a crim­inal case. During his visit to India in 2016, Dahal had met Chaudhary and pledged support in his case.

RJPN’s victory

For the RJPN, Chaudhary’s swearing-in was a political victory that has enhanced its position in the Tharu community. Soon after the swearing-in, RJPN cadres in some far-western Tarai districts broke into celebrations. “We did not issue any directives, but there was spontaneous celebration by Chaudhary’s supporters,” said RJPN leader Laxman Lal Karna, adding, “Chaudhary is innocent and his swearing-in is a step towards hon­oring the public mandate.”

The Oli government spokes­person, Gokul Baskota, also defended the swearing-in: “It is the government’s duty to respect the public mandate. But we are also ready to abide by relevant court decisions, if any.”

RJPN leaders say Chaudhary’s swearing-in is a first and major vic­tory. Their priority now is to create political consensus in order to get the government to withdraw the legal charge against Chaudhary.

Following the swearing-in, there is now a sort of competition between the RJPN and the Sanghiya Samajbadi Forum led by Upendra Yadav, a part of the Oli government, to take credit for this ‘achievement.’

Though Chaudhary is accused of the Tikapur killings, he enjoys strong support in the Tharu com­munity, which was also evident in his victory by a huge margin from Kailali-1 constituency in the 2017 national elections. He had filed his nomination in absentia and had conducted his election campaign secretly. His voters believe he is innocent and should be freed.

What the law says

Article 244 of Parliament Regula­tion deals with the status of a par­liamentarian if he or she is charged with or convicted of a crime.

• If any parliamentarian is arrested, Speaker should inform the house about such arrest.

• If a lawmaker is arrested and charge sheet filed against him or her in court, he or she can­not function or enjoy any rights as a lawmaker, and he or she would not get any remuneration or facilities.

• If the court convicts any lawmaker on a criminal case, he or she will be automatically suspended.

Tikapur and its aftermath

When the first draft of the con­stitution was finalized in July 2015, some political parties and groups protested against it. In the far-western Tarai districts, the Tharu community organized a series of protests demanding an autonomous Tharu province. The Tikapur killings took place on Aug 23, when high-level police officials were trying to negotiate with the Tharu protestors.

It took several weeks to bring the situation under control and prevent possible communal tensions. Political parties were divided. The Nepali Congress and the then CPN-UML termed it a law and order problem, whereas the then CPN (Maoist Center) and Madhes-based par­ties billed it a political incident that called for a political resolu­tion. The government formed a panel to investigate the case, but its report is yet to be made pub­lic. The police subsequently filed a charge-sheet against Chaud­hary for his alleged role in the killings. (After the killings, there were reports of arbitrary arrests, torture and ill-treatment of mem­bers of the Tharu community.)

Chaudhary fled to India and started lobbying for the with­drawal of the case against him. In February last year, he surren­dered before the Kailali District Court, where the case against him is still pending. The court has completed recording the statements of around 100 peo­ple including Chaudhary, but the date of the hearing has not been fixed. As some key docu­ments related to the case were with the Supreme Court, the hearing could not take place in Kailali. Chaudhary filed a case in the apex court, arguing that his detention is illegal. However, upholding the District Court’s decision, the SC on Jan 7 ruled that Chaudhary cannot be freed on bail. Following the verdict, the Kailali District Could is expected to start its hearing soon.

It has been over a decade of prepa­rations to create a bureaucratic structure for federal Nepal. But a solution is nowhere in sight. The Civil Servant Adjustment Ordinance 2075, which was issued in the sec­ond week of December with the aim of deploying civil servants at the provincial and local levels, has instead created multiple problems. Mainly, the provincial and local governments are facing a human resource crunch, hampering service delivery and development projects. The protest over the ordinance has clearly signaled that provincial and local levels will continue to run short of manpower.

 Number of civil servants required

In the federal government : 46,000

In the provinces : 22,000

At the local level : 67,750

Total civil servants at present : 86,000

Constitutional ambiguity

Several commissions have been formed to suggest ways to deploy civil servants under the federal setup. Soon after the promulga­tion of the constitution in 2015, the government formed a high-level committee under the PMO to study federal restructuring. It held several meetings, to no avail.

The government is now facing multiple problems in the deploy­ment of civil servants at the three levels. Kasiraj Dahal, an expert in public administration, says this is the result of ambiguous constitu­tional provisions.

He thinks that as the constitution is silent on specifics, employees in various services are demanding that they be adjusted in an area of their choosing. “It has for instance created difficulties in addressing the demands of employees working at the local level, in Parliament and in the education sector,” Dahal says.

The ordinance on adjustment of civil servants has drawn flak from stakeholders. Representatives of civil servant organizations say they were not consulted. The govern­ment is also facing criticism for issuing the ordinance by bypassing parliament. Nepali Congress, the main opposition, as well as some ruling party lawmakers, have voiced their criticism, putting the government in a tight spot.

In 2017 the then govern­ment had promulgated the Civil Servant Act, but the new Oli government refused to take ownership. “Instead of implementing the previous Act promul­gated when the Nepali Congress was in power, the new government suddenly came up with another law with new provisions. This has created problems,” says NC leader Gagan Thapa.

The Civil Service Act 2074 had a provision of voluntary retirement for the civil servants who do not want to continue on their jobs. But the government did not imple­ment this provision, citing budget­ary constraints. The new govern­ment issued the ordinance thinking that it would take a long time to deploy civil servants.

A major concern of civil servants is that their promotion and transfer to the federal government should not be blocked. They say they are ready to work at the provincial and local levels, but they should not be confined there. They should also be allowed to become Secretary and Chief Secretary in the federal government.

In negotiation with civil ser­vants, the government has agreed to address those concerns through an amendment, but they are not convinced. “The government has blocked the transfer and growth of civil servants. The Act is against the spirit of the constitu­tion,” says Gopal Prasad Pokhrel, Chairman of Nepal Civil Servant Union. He says civil servants will not accept their assignment if their demands are not fulfilled.

No solution in sight

Observers say difficulties in the deployment of civil servants will persist as the government is not serious about coming up with a durable solution, as envisaged in the constitution. As per constitu­tional provisions, provincial and local governments can create their own civil services. The constitution stipulates provincial Public Service Commissions for the selection and deployment of civil servants. But there has been no effort to formulate the Provincial and Local Civil Ser­vice Act. “A draft of laws relating to the basis of provincial Public Service Commissions has been registered in the federal parliament. If the bill is endorsed, it would pave the way for a long-term solution,” says Umesh Prasad Main­ali, Chairperson of Public Service Commission.

Dahal says that forma­tion of the provincial Pub­lic Service Commissions is the only lasting formula for the management of civil servants at the federal, provincial and local levels.

The rigid position taken by civil servant organizations also doesn’t help. Civil servants prefer to work in convenient places. There have been several instances whereby civil servants deployed at the local level have stayed in district headquarters, hampering service delivery. “We have already implemented a federal structure, but civil servants have a centralized mindset and are hesi­tant to work at provincial and local levels,” Dahal says. Civil servants, however, say the incentives to work in rural areas are inadequate.

Observers think that even if the current row is resolved, it would be a herculean task to keep civil ser­vants in rural areas.

Politicization of bureaucracy

Civil servants with right political connections get transferred to urban areas, while those lacking such con­nections are forced into rural areas. Past experience also suggests that civil servants tend to stay in dis­trict headquarters and still enjoy foolproof political protection. Civil servants have also formed unions that stage protests if the government makes an unpopular decision.

“We should go for a win-win formula. The government should assure the concerns of civil servants will be accommodated while endorsing the Federal Civil Service Act. Civil servants should then cooperate,” says Dahal, the administrative expert.

The federal parliament’s National Concerns and Coordinate Commit­tee has invited Law Minister Bhanu Bhakta Dhakal and Minister for Gen­eral Administration and Federal Affairs Lal Babu Pandit to discuss civil servant adjustment. Repre­sentatives of trade unions are also invited in the meeting early next week. But even if the government and civil servant association reach an agreement concerning transfer, career growth and other issues, it will be implemented only after the promulgation of the elusive Federal Civil Servant Act.

Why is the government performance considered so dismal?

Recent political changes created high expectations. It is not possible to fulfill all these expectations at once. The government has undertaken some positive initiatives but the results are as not evident yet.

Is it right to say that this government has no clear vision and policy?

I do not think so. In the initial days, the government pursued an independent foreign policy, and settled internal issues on its own without foreign help. The government also established balanced relations with neighboring countries based on mutual trust. It formulated laws to implement the constitution and make the federal structures functional. Local levels are also working effectively. The government must also be credited for taking decisive steps to implement the social security scheme. The policy of providing loans on the basis of educational certificates has been implemented, which helps curb rising unemployment. However, we have not been able to perform satisfactorily on the governance front. We have not done enough to curb corruption and deliver good governance.  

Is there a rift in party leadership?

The focus of our recent intra-party discussions is the fact that this government should not be allowed to fail. Its failure will lead to multiple crises in the country. Intra-party debates are thus centered on how to make the government’s works more effective and result-oriented. There is a view that the party must have a decisive say in running the government, and that the government’s weaknesses must be corrected but its positive tasks should be recognized.

Is the dissatisfaction centered on what is perceived as KP Oli’s monopoly in government?

Intra-party discussions are centered on two broad areas. First, how do we establish party control over government functioning? Second, how does the government prioritize economic prosperity and social justice? There is also consensus in the party that the current model of leadership, with two chairmen, is appropriate.

There are reports that Pushpa Kamal Dahal prevailed over KP Oli in the recent Standing Committee meeting.

Discussions in the party were not aimed at encouraging one chairman and discouraging another. The spirit of the discussions was that the two chairmen as well as the nine-member secretariat must share the blame for our recent failings. As PM Oli is leading the government, it is natural that he is criticized more.

But it is true that Dahal has of late played an apposite role in terms of party ideology, organizational structure and self-criticism. He has shown a sense of urgency. He was instrumental in making the meeting a success. But the meeting has not weakened PM Oli either. It has rather created a basis for collective leadership.

There are also demands that the party should implement a ‘one-man, one-post’ formula.

The party statute incorporates this principle. But it does not mean that one chairman should get one specific responsibility right now. Since we are in a phase of historical transition in terms of party unification, we have decided to move ahead with two chairmen. We are not in a position to assign specific responsibility to a particular chairman.

But in terms of practicality, the chairman who is leading the government should give more priority to government issues, while the chairman who is not in government should give more time to party organization. In terms of broader organizational structure, the ‘one-man, one-post’ formula is appropriate, at least until the party’s next General Convention.  

Do you think PM Oli will hand over government leadership to Dahal after two and half years?

It is not appropriate to talk about this right now. After a long time, there is hope of stability. We must support the government. The government leadership should not be confined to time frames.

But past governments in Nepal have collapsed because of intra-party disagreements over power-sharing.  

Politics and culture change with time. Now we have a stable government, which needs to be strengthened. Power issues are secondary. If there is an understanding in the party, we can take any decisions, including on government leadership.

Are there regular consultations between the party and the government?

In a multi-party democratic set-up and especially under communist party rule, it is the party that runs the government. Government policies and programs must be discussed within the party, which is not happening. The party cannot interfere in the day-to-day affairs of the government, but it should have a say in broader policy and structure.  

In a separate context, why do you think India is reluctant to receive the report of Nepal-India Eminent Persons Group (EPG)?

The Indian government’s is delay is inappropriate. It signals the perception that there has been a sea change in India’s Nepal policy post-blockade is untrue. Otherwise, there is no valid reason to delay receiving the EPG report.  

Do you think the internal politics of Nepal and India are hampering bilateral relations?

India is currently in electoral mode, with fast-approaching national elections. This has influenced bilateral relations. So far as Nepal is concerned, no internal factor is hampering relations with India right now. Some decisions of the Indian establishment have created friction between the two countries and affected India’s own interests, which is being realized in India. Again, the election season could be one reason behind the delay in receiving the EPG report.

Separately, what did you make of Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali’s statement that Nepal has convinced the US not to view Nepal from an Indian lens?

One dialogue or meeting cannot deliver such positive results. But FM Gyawali knows better because he discussed these issues with American officials. He is the right person to ask if there have been any changes in America’s approach to Nepal. But it would be premature to conclude that the US approach to Nepal has changed.

Does the foreign minister’s US visit signal a fresh approach of reaching out to countries beyond India and China?

Our geopolitical location has provided us with great opportunities as well as risks. If we conduct our foreign policy with maturity, our geopolitical location will benefit us. But if we fail to do so, it would adversely affect out national sovereignty and interest. We must tread carefully. We should not be unduly encouraged by one event or incident.

The US State Department says that the US now views Nepal as a central plank of its Indo-Pacific strategy. What is your reading?

We should try to enhance bilateral relations with other countries. But I don’t think the US extended its invitation to our foreign minister only to discuss bilateral issues. America formally talked about Nepal’s role in its Indo-Pacific strategy and requested us to play a central role. We should be cautious. We should not be involved in any such strategy. When I heard the US talk about Nepal’s central role in America’s Indo-Pacific strategy, I was surprised. What does it mean? The US government seems intent on forcing Nepal to back this strategy.

Is this strategy against china?

It is obviously against China. It is not in the interest of Nepal either.

There are also reports that the US sought Nepal’s help in curbing North Korea.

The Americans are saying that they want peace on the Korean Peninsula. The US is seeking our support in its proposal to the UN on North Korea. Similarly, America has, in a roundabout way, sought our help in curbing North Korean activities in Nepal and downsizing the North Korean embassy in Kathmandu. The US also wants us to restrict visas to North Korean citizens. It is a part of their strategy to put more pressure on North Korea.

Finally, as a former foreign minister, can you tell us where the biggest threats to Nepali interests have traditionally come from?

Everyone knows the most immediate threat comes from the southern neighbor, and then from western countries. There are no immediate threats from China. China’s interest in Nepal is limited to Tibet. China would otherwise not interfere in our internal affairs.

Uma Singh. Birendra Shah. Prakash Singh Thakuri. Maheshwar Pahari. These courageous Nepali journalists were killed, at different times, as they had dared to speak truth to power.

Following the formal end of the Maoist insurgency in 2006, journalists in Nepal are comparably safer. The last murder, of Uma Singh, happened in 2009. Yet Nepali journalists continue to face all kinds of intimidations, threats of violence, and even physical violence. There have been over 100 cases of infringement of press freedom in Nepal in 2018, way more than the 66 instances in 2017.

And it’s a dangerous world for journalists. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), in 2018 alone, 53 have been killed in their line of duty, in countries as diverse as Brazil, India, the US, Syria, Somalia and Afghanistan. One of them was the 59-year-old Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi.

To put it bluntly, Khashoggi had to die because the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman didn’t like him. Khashoggi had repeatedly written about the kingdom’s illiberal impulses, for instance, its sponsoring of the military intervention in Yemen that has killed at least 11,000 civilians. For his crimes Khashoggi was strangled inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and his body dismembered to hide evidence.

Khashoggi is APEX ICON 2018 because his murder is a constant reminder that we should not take freedoms for granted

The international community was horrified. Liberal democracies around the world condemned the killing and demanded international sanctions against the Saudi elite. Other governments, including Nepal’s, chose silence. Besides a perfunctory statement from the FNJ, and save for some op-ed pieces, criticism of this most horrendous killing of a journalist was largely missing in Nepal. Perhaps this was to be expected in a country that has seen a steady erosion of press freedom in recent times, so much so that government ministers are now calling the media “peddlers of fake news”.

But it would be dangerous to forget what happened to Jamal Khashoggi. Free expression and speech have no boundaries. They are also indispensable for a functioning democracy. Jamal Khashoggi is APEX ICON 2018 because his brutal murder is a constant reminder that we dare not take our freedoms for granted. As a government amasses power, it also tends to be rather autocratic. It thus needs constant reminders of its limits. If daring journalists like Khashoggi can be so easily silenced, and seemingly with no consequences for his killers, it bodes ill for democratic freedoms in a world increasingly governed by majority-pandering populists.

His is an inspiring story of how one journalist fought a mighty state and in his untimely death ended up being the emblem of press freedom

Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi's Timeline

Jan 22 1958: Born in Medina, Saudi Arabia

1982: Graduated from Indiana State University in the US with a BBA.

1986: Began his journalistic career working for English-language Arab News and Okaz. He also wrote for influential London-based Arabic dailies Al-Sharq Al-Awsat and Al-Hayat.

Late 1980s to early 1990s: Khashoggi came to prominence for his coverage of the Soviet war in Afghanistan and the rise of Osama Bin Laden. Khashoggi is credited as being one of the first Arab reporters to profile bin Laden.

1995: bin Laden’s family asked Khashoggi to interview Osama and get him to publicly denounce violence. However, bin Laden remained steadfast about his desire to fight the Americans, and Khashoggi was forced to give up.

1999-2003: Khashoggi became the deputy editor for the Saudi-run newspaper Arab News, and remained in that position for four years. His next position as the editor-in-chief of the Al-Watan paper barely lasted two months before he was dismissed from the post without explanation.

2003-2007: He served as media adviser to Prince Turki al Faisal, the veteran head of the Saudi general intelligence service.

2007-2010: Khashoggi was reinstated as the editor of Al-Watan in 2007, but resigned again in 2010, after a row over running another controversial opinion piece.

June 2017: He went into a self-imposed exile in the US. From there, he wrote a monthly column in the Washington Post in which he criticized the policies of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Oct 2, 2018: Khashoggi was last seen entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to obtain documents that would seal his marriage to his Turkish fiancee, Hatice Cengiz. He was allegedly killed and dismembered with a bone-saw on the same day by a team of Saudi agents on orders that came from the Crown Prince.

Why Jamal Khashoggi is APEX ICON 2018

If those like him who hold the power to account can be so openly silenced, and with seemingly no damning consequence, democratic freedoms around the world will be under threat. Nepal will be no exception

Between Jan 1 and Dec 14 this year, 53 journalists were murdered worldwide, nearly double the number in 2017. Packed with worrisome stats like this, the annual report of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), an independent non-profit that promotes press freedom worldwide, makes for a grim reading.

“Journalists from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan to the US were targeted for murder in 2018 in reprisal for their work, bringing the total of journalists killed on duty to its highest in three years,” the report says, even while “the number of journalists killed in conflict fell to its lowest level since 2011.”

One of those murdered this year was Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. His early October assassination inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, and the subsequent dismemberment of his body, had sent shock waves around the world.

Khashoggi was a veteran journalist who in his long career had reported on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and interviewed Osama bin Laden. Before that he had served as an advisor to the Saudi government. When relations with the House of Saud soured in 2017, he went on a self-imposed exile in the United States. In this recent columns in the Washington Post Khashoggi had been rather critical of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman whom he faulted for, among other things, sponsoring the brutal war in Yemen.

Unaware of how badly he had riled the mercurial crown prince, Khashoggi had gone to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on Oct 2 to get documents for his marriage with his Turkish fiancée Hatice Cengiz, a doctoral student at a university in Istanbul. “The consular official, who had informed him that the paperwork had come through, had told him to be at the Saudi consulate at 1 pm,” Cengiz would write in her opinion piece published in the New York Times on Oct 13. “On our way there, we made plans for the rest of the day. We were going to browse appliances for our new home and meet with our friends and family members over dinner.” (APEX attempted to contact Cenzig for this article, both through emails and over the phone. She could not be reached.)

“Khashoggi’s murder highlights the rise of authoritarian and populist leaders and their intolerance for diverse and critical opinion,” Gagan Thapa, Nepali Congress leader

The rough prince

Initially, Saudi officials denied any involvement in the murder. Later, they provided conflicting information. Only after an international outcry did the Saudi government confess to the involvement of some of its officials but the full account of what happened in the Saudi consulate is yet to emerge. Intelligence reports, including from the CIA, suggest the crown prince himself ordered Khashoggi’s murder. Such a brazen killing of a journalist—that too in a consulate on foreign soil—has predictably shocked the global media fraternity, including in Nepal.

The Federation of Nepalese Journalists (FNJ) condemned the killing and lodged a protest letter with the Saudi Embassy in Kathmandu, demanding immediate action against those involved. “We submitted a strong protest letter. But I also confess that we have not done enough,” said Ram Prasad Dahal, a secretary at the FNJ. “My observation is that our major media houses are not giving this important issue enough space. The FNJ could also have been more vocal.”

Media experts APEX contacted were of the opinion that the issues of freedom of speech and expression are universal, and all attempts to suppress them, anywhere in the world, should be condemned.  

“There are universal repercussions of this killing because it creates a psychological fear among journalists of other countries. It may also contribute to self-censorship as they fear criticizing powerful rulers fearing similar consequences,” said Tara Nath Dahal, a former FNJ chairman who now leads Freedom Forum. “Impunity on crimes against journalists is a major problem around the world. Therefore despite the intense international pressure there has been no proper investigation of the Khashoggi murder.” 

Nepali Congress leader Gagan Thapa has also been closely watching global reaction to Khashoggi’s murder. “His murder shows that free speech and expression are under threat globally.” Thapa believes the US, “as a champion of liberal democracy, should have taken a stronger stand.”

Chiranjibi Khanal, Head of Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, Tribhuwan University, sees Khashoggi’s murder as a part of “a universal trend of suppressing press freedom.”

When populists prevail

In the reckoning of Gagan Thapa, Khashoggi’s murder also highlights the rise of authoritarian and populist leaders and their intolerance for diverse and critical opinion, including in Nepal.  

He faults the reaction of Nepal government on Khashoggi’s killing. “Leaders who claim to be nationalists tend not to speak on internal affairs of other countries. They in turn want other countries to keep mum on their internal issues. Freedom of speech and expression, however, is a global issue and all sovereign countries should uphold it,” Thapa said.

Many world leaders swiftly condemned the killing and demanded an immediate probe but there was no reaction from our government or from any of our political parties. After the end of the Maoist conflict in 2006, journalists in Nepal are comparably safer. During the insurgency, many journalists had been killed, both by the state and the Maoist party.

And yet, there is impunity on the crimes against journalists as those involved are seldom punished. According to official records, there were around 100 cases of press freedom violations in Nepal in 2018, a sharp rise from 2017 when 66 such incidents were registered.

Various national and international organizations have noted a high level of self-censorship in Nepal. Journalists hold back on critical reporting on powerful politicians and businessmen fearing reprisal.

There has also been a systematic effort to portray Nepali media in a negative light—from the government. A few weeks ago, Minister for Information and Technology Gokul Banskota accused Nepali media of peddling fake news. Co-chairman of ruling Nepal Communist Party Pushpa Kamal Dahal recently accused Nepali media of being “handmaiden of capitalist forces”. Prime Minister KP Oli has chaffed at what he thinks as “constant negative portrayal” of his government. There are reports that more regulations are in the works to make the Nepali press “more disciplined.”

Khashoggi’s murder represents the extreme to which those in power can go to silence their critics. Again, as those we talked to suggested, freedom of speech should have no boundaries, real or artificial. This is why Khashoggi’s killing must be condemned in the strongest possible way and there is a need for concerted international pressure on Saudi Arabia to come clean.

Khashoggi is APEX ICON 2018 because if those like him who hold the power to account can be so openly silenced, and with seemingly no damning consequence, democratic freedoms around the world will be under threat. Nepal will be no exception. We therefore we need to endlessly champion his cause.